tv [untitled] March 22, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT
mentioned in the environmental %u department documents, secret documents, and one common sense told we use -- when common thing we use is a block of votes, and although clarendon is a different street by nature, i would point out is interconnected by a pedestrian walkway, and i did conduct the entire staff visit on foot, and i was able to do it conveniently. as shown in some of the photos presented by the appellants, those homes on the northern side are clearly visible from belgrave ave. as a slope of, so
another thing to keep in mind is the streets are introduced not as comparative benchmarks, but simply to give an orientation to the reader as to where the geography is, and ceqa does have a lengthy section in our environmental documents. it attempts to tell the story of where it is located and what surrounds it. it has been within a block for two of the project site. >> i want to mention there were certain things mentioned in the testimony with respect to youthe environmental document. they did mention this spring,
and people are mentioning birds and animals and other creatures running around. it was considered in biological resources. if there were issues of soils commo, it was included in this document. but is not to say even if it was upheld, the project itself -- it will be coming to us in some form, and i think commissioner miguel pointed out is up the time the planning commission will take what you consider a closer look up the avenue itself and the desirability of the project if it gets that far.
that is all ion add. commissioner borden: i think typically when we do- declarations, and this is a more extensive environmental reverie, and i understand some of the characterization's may not be accurate, but for the purpose of ceqa, we are not at all voting for the project or against it. we are making no judgment of the appropriateness of it being of the site, and as the other critical factor want people to understand. we are not approving or disapproving the document.
we are silent at it, but we do not have the project before us to really no intent region -- to really know it, the close it is often very different because the project description changes from the beginning to the end, so based upon the requirements of ceqa, and i have not heard anything that would make us say this is an adequate document, particularly because for these types of documents it is difficult to declare- documentation. had this been toxic use or some use the -- some indication this land would be unique in terms of environmental relationship,
we would want for their review, -- further review, but we have nothing to indicate this is residential, so i am not going to uphold the appeal, but this is not a decision based upon our judgment of the project. the zoning administrator will make a decision about the variouance. i do want to ask why it is being made now before it can come to us. arthur had been an initial proposal -- >> there have been an initial proposal to have everything at the same time. there was a request by the neighbors to have the project broken up, so about is what was done, to have the are scheduled at a later time.
since we already have the variantce together, we wanted to consult all parties involved so they did not have to attend three different hearings. it was a scheduling issue. >> depending on what you do, it could change the project materially. >> that is correct. if it is the ninth there is no project. if it is granted, the dr would be brought back to you in a few weeks. >> thank you. >> my understanding is there is a motion to uphold negative declaration. on the motion? [calling votes]
thank you, commissioners. the motion have unanimously -- passed unanimously. it is recommended because of variants is the soul of jurisdiction of the zoning administrator, we just have housekeeping items to take care of, and i suggest you take care of those, and you can adjourn. the zoning administrator would hear the variance for 89 belgrave. with that, we will take it out of order. i guess it was your joint hearing on march 8, but was actually canceled, and your regular minutes from march 1, 2012.
>> i have a change from the march meeting, and that is the spelling of my name on the second page. >> we will correct that. commissioner borden: on the march 1 ministersutes, it says n peperal, and is a pep rally. >> pep ralley. >> the grammar is all screwed up, but we will figure that out later. >> to correct the name and to correct a pep rally.
any other modifications? >> move the minutes with corrections was noted. >> on the motion? [calling votes] thank you, commissioners. are there any other commission matters? directors report, directors announcement? >> are want to mention -- i want to mention i have several questions about the proposed new board -- billboard on the building the happens to be owned by the department, and there is a proposal to replace the existing off from its advertising side on the eastern side of the building. just to be clear, that is a legal sign. it is legally permitted to exist
again, and the proposal in front of the city, the city is negotiating a new contract, and it would be substantially smaller, because it would have to comply with new state regulations regarding distance from state highways, and it is actually part of highway 0101, so there was a sign it had never existed, and in the proposal but is currently under consideration, it can exist there but under a much smaller size, and there was a public meeting about that tuesday night, and the final disposition would have to go to the board, and the board will be considering the new contract in coming weeks.
that is it for me. i am sure you do not need any more comments from us tonight. >> i do have of brief report from the board of appeals. they met last night. no appeal for this commission. i do have the commission report. i will read about. there are important issues to discuss. the annual government report outlines activities of the department over the past year. this is a requirement of the city and local governments status. the mayor's office of housing also provides a separate report. the department submitted an overview and, and comments will be required next week.
they considered the designation for the gold dust cloud. this would could -- this was considered from february 16, and they will address a number of locations. a motion to disapprove the initiation failed as well uas a motion to continue. regardless of the vote on april 4 commo, is this moves forward,e would have to hold a hearing on the designation and vote to recommend approval or disapproval. it would need to be within 60 days of referral, and that is
all i have to report. >> is there any general public comment? trucks and the general public comment -- >> and the general public comment? c nine, can i adjourn this -- seeing none, and i returned this part of the meeting? >> the planning commission does not have more, but the zoning administration has a request for variance. >> meeting adjourned.
>> mr. zoning administrator. youlife if you would not mind reading into record the case. >> the case before your is 2009. richard -- is 2009 for belgrave ave. it currently contains a single family house on the eastern side of the lot. the proposal includes splitting a lot into two lots of the east side. the proposal also includes demolishing a nine-foot section of the west side of the existing
house and constructing a vertical and horizontal addition. it includes instructing -- constructing a new house. lots are required to have 4000 square feet of area of. the new lot to the west will contain 3300 square feet, 700 square feet less than required by the planning commode. therefore, a variance is required. >> we will give each member of the public three minutes to speak, followed by a three- minute rebuttal by the project sponsor. i would like to inform the members of the public, thank you for your patience, but i was present for the hearing on
environmental reviews, so i have heard the testimony given. i want to make you aware that i did fully pay attention to the testimony that has already been given, so please consider that when making earmarks. >> you look so far away. it is interesting. thank you again. it is really important to get acclimated with the environment, specifically the zoning environment. there was a lot of talk about the neighborhood character, but in terms of what we are looking at today, we really have an interesting transition zone to the north of belgave ave. you run into dense zoning, and
there is no zoning lighke belgrave until you get far north of fioringeary. there's no question this is a special block. it is bracketed by open space on one side, open space on another side. we are not denying this is a unique lot, but we want to start focusing on is why the clock works and why this is justified -- why the block works, and why this is justified. >> it is an unusual street, and this creates a very interesting enclave at the top. what is interesting, it is the
only zoning district in the city were you had a 4000 square feet requirement, which is interesting, because you can see this is the north portion. there is not one lot that is 4000 square feet. it is an unusual situation, which calls into question the pattern. there really is not one. goowe started looking into the y databases to get information, so this is much more representative picture of what it looks like. this is the stretch. we looked at about 60 lots on one side of the street.
29 of these lots, almost half of the marlowes and done 4000 square feet. it is going to take awhile to get this. the lots they are proposing are right in the range of this eclectic range of lot patterns. some are bigger, and some are smaller. these fit right in, so we are trying to justify and can justify that creating one lot for the addition of one single family home is justified.
we need the findings. we need to prove to your it satisfies the findings. it is a very large lot out over 7,000 feet. it is an unusually large lot. the next one cause of a lot of people hard earned -- heartburn. the hardship created here is relatively straightforward. the existing situation creates a situation where the other half of the lot is unusable. as you can see from the neighbors, they are anxious about adjustment to the lot.
literally enforcement would be an unnecessary hardship. is there some compelling policy that will be served? this is a large lot. i have run out of time. i am going to finish with my rebuttal. thank you. goobut i do have speaker cards,d we usually have people, and speed, so if you would not mind making your presentation in order that up, that is the best way to do this. >> my parents bought a house 46
years ago, and as he presented a lot sizes, they have a double what that is totally inaccessible. if you talk about hardship, my parents have one taken away years ago by a neighbor, because they said we were not using it, so we intended to build on our back lot, and it was the ninth u.s. -- it was denied to us. you bought it as is, so if we cannot build on a smarter --
smaller parcel, but splits the neighborhood. i have been trying to build just a garage, and it has been sitting in planning since 2008, and i am still working on it. i have sympathy. >> my remarks depend on the application for the project. i strongly oppose this subdivision of the lot. the applicant fails the test.
none of the other holders of large lots have any problems and do not need a reason to do so. the only hardship was by the applicant, who knew full well this would not permit to holmes -- two homes. and to preserve and opened gridlocked following the 1975 rezoning. there is nothing preventing the current owner from entering it. his sole objective is to make a profit.
his self created hardship is nothing but a bad investment. zoning has nothing to do with profit. the argument us a variance is warranted does not hold water. all of these lots were created prior to the zoning. nothing prevents current or future owners from the substantial right to have a beautiful home. they argue the best benefit is quiet subdividing so they can make a profit. this can amount to property rights that is not available to others. this president from 1975 but others will speak about, so i
will not go into it now. the approval subjected to dwellings and a smaller lot would be out of character. lot size minimums were established, so there is a potpourri of what sizes. this would establish an incentive for current and future investors to subdivide, and as one of our biggest concerns. gooi will let others speak to t. thank you 3 much. -- thank you very much. >> we very much appreciate your separating the dr from this process. i am opposed to the variance.
if we look at a lot sizes, the average lot size on belgrave is 5000 square feet. it is true they are very, but none of them were created through a variantce, so none of those homes were built on a lot created through a variance. we feel president is very important. i also refer to the initial application submitted in 2009. he states, there is no extraordinary or unusual circumstance. he fails to meet the criteria by stating there is no circumstance but would merit a variant. there have been 10 major remodels on belgrave. one required a zoning variance. we have never ended up in front
of a zoning hearing over variances in the street, because they were all in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. ours was so we could build an addition within the existing lot lines of the property. we ask you deny the variance and uphold the character of the neighborhood. thank you 3 much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez, for taking time to listen to us. i would like to continue in our rebuttal of the requirements. my rebuttal to requirement #5, granting were non is warranted will undermine the general plan and rules and regulations.
owners should be able to depend on regular to where they have invested savings and lives. permitting non-conforming variances solely to profit an investor is unacceptable. the proposed development fails to meet the three priorities stated in the plan, claims that one home is silly. this project results in multimillion-dollar speculative homes and does nothing to promote affordable housing and construction two homes out of character with the neighborhood. applicant's request for a variance this and every other test. in particular, we noted that any so-called hardship was specifically created by the owner and investor himself when he purchased a property known w